MRC Dismisses Abortion Clinic Violence Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Kyle Drennen complained in a May 22 post:
During a report on Wednesday’s Today show promoting “protests from coast to coast” against pro-life legislation in various states, NBC reporter Stephanie Gosk fretted over such a measure being considered in Louisiana. She noted how “calls from patients have spiked” at a New Orleans abortion clinic and ironically asked a member of the clinic’s staff if a “violent act” had ever occurred at the facility.
After Caldwell described seeing “protesters almost every day” outside the clinic, Gosk assumed the pro-life demonstrators were dangerous: “Has there ever been any violent act? Any attack on your clinic?” Caldwell claimed: “Absolutely, and on clinic staff.”
Apparently it was missed on Gosk that abortions themselves are acts of violence.
Note how Drennen frames reporting on protests against "pro-life legislation" -- euphemistic terminology instead of the more accurate "anti-abortion" -- as "promoting" the protests. That's what we call the depiction-equals-approval fallacy, a longtime MRC staple.
Note, too, how Drennen quickly deflects away from anti-abortion activists committing violence to claiming that the REAL violence is going on inside the clinic -- perhaps as a justification for anti-abortion violence.
Of course, this sort of deflection is part of the right-wing anti-abortion playbook. When a man shot and killed three people inside a Planned Parenthood clinic in 2015, the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, immediately portrayed the man as mentally ill and not part of the anti-abortion movement (even though the killings advance the movement's goals and was clearly inflamed by anti-abortion rhetoric). The MRC proper did the same thing.
WND Columnist Can't Separate Trump And America Topic: WorldNetDaily
Scott Lively takes a break from hating gays in his May 24 WorldNetDaily column to go the divine-Donald route. Not only does he assert that God chose Trump to be president, there's no difference between Trump and America and if you oppose one, you oppose both:
This unique, world-shaping nation – our “sweet land of liberty”– faces an existential Satanic threat in the Marxist Uniparty campaign to destroy our president. For His own reasons reminiscent of His picks for the Old Testament judges, God chose this flawed but fearless bare-knuckle fighter, Donald J. Trump, to rescue America from the Clinton/Obama/Bush/Soros/Deep State takedown in 2016 and to grant its people a short reprieve: a limited window of opportunity to rally behind the Constitution and Christianity as they were understood by our Founding Fathers.
Why do they hate Trump so zealously? Because America – the real America handed down to us by the founders – is the only thing that stands in the way of these diabolical, God-hating fanatics and their world-conquering agenda. And President Donald Trump is the man chosen – by God and American voters – for this desperate season, to lead real America’s last stand against them.
In a very real sense, at this critical moment America is Trump and Trump is America. If Trump goes down, America goes down. The window of reprieve will have closed, and this once exceptional nation will be cannibalized and assimilated into the new globalist order along with every other country that has followed Trump’s lead.
Because if this tireless, thick-skinned, hard-punching, PC-rejecting, Christianity-defending warrior, who can’t be steered or intimidated by the leftist media, who knows all the left’s dirty tricks as only a former insider can know them, and who isn’t restrained by the Marquis of Queensberry rules that only Republicans are ever held to … if he can’t defeat the swamp creatures, then who among the very limited universe of possible alternative leaders could?
No. These are times and circumstances of biblical proportions, and for His own reasons God has raised up Donald Trump as our warrior-champion. Our duty as patriotic Americans is to keep a crystal clear focus on the enormity of the stakes we all face in this war against Trump and to do all that we can to prevent our common enemies from taking him down.
Lively even managed to keep his gay-hating to an absolute minimum. merely listing "LGBT radicals" as part of the "axis of evil" arrayed against Trump. That's pretty tepid by Lively's standards.
CNS Sends Another Intern To Pester Members of Congress Topic: CNSNews.com
It's summer intern season, and the Media Research Center has a whole crop of 'em. Some get assigned to the "news" division, CNSNews.com, where they get assigned to do things like pester members of Congress with whatever right-wing bias-driven question Terry Jeffrey and crew want to pin them down on an answer.
We're unclear on whether Alex Madajian is an intern -- if so, he appears to have been there for the spring season, since his last article at this writing appeared May 24. His second-to-last article appeared the same day, and it was that bias-driven drudgery:
Although the Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee have issued a subpoena to the IRS demanding the tax returns of President Donald Trump for 2013-2018, Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said he has no plans to demand the release of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) tax returns.
Also, when asked if he would release his tax returns, Chairman Neal did not answer directly but said, “At the right moment I’d be happy to, sure.” At that point he was escorted away by a staffer.
CNSNews.com contacted all 42 Ways and Means Committee members – Democrat and Republican – and asked them three questions:
-- Should the committee also subpoena the tax returns of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the six tax years from 2013 through 2018?
-- Has the representative publicly released his/her tax returns for the six tax years from 2013 through 2018? If so, where can we see copies of them?
-- If he/she has not publicly released her/his tax returns for the six tax years from 2013 through 2018 will he/she release them now?
CNSNews.com contacted each member’s office by email and telephone. Also, CNSNews.com went to several of the members’ offices and spoke with the press personnel there and interviewed several committee members in the halls of Congress.
To date, only 11 committee members (or their offices), out of 42, have responded to CNSNews.com’s questions.
That's right -- Madajian was forced to hound 42 members of Congress with a partisan series of questions because someone at CNS was mad that Democrats are seeking Trump's tax returns.
Madajian went on to complain that "The committee has not demanded the tax returns of any previous president," but he didn't mention there was no need to because all presidents since Richard Nixon have released them on their own.
AIM Cites Biased Tweets To Attack Article's Alleged 'Biased Framing' Topic: Accuracy in Media
Carrie Sheffield spends a May 29 Accuracy in Media post complaining that "The Washington Post relied on anonymous sourcing and biased framing in its reporting that “President Trump’s new executive order giving the attorney general broad authority to declassify government secrets threatens to expose U.S. intelligence sources and could distort the FBI and CIA’s roles in investigating Russian interference in the 2016 elections.'" Her idea of rebutting things was to cite a partisan figure's tweets that are, yes, filled with biased framing:
Former George W. Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called out the Post’s Shane Harris for his framing and assertions:
“Flynn was unmasked and the info leaked,” he tweeted. “Hillary’s campaign funded a false dossier that the FBI used to justify a FISA warrant. Comey’s briefing to Trump about the dossier was leaked. But Barr is the problem?!”
Fleischer called out the unprecedented nature of questionable actions taken by Obama officials.
“The headline on the story should be ‘Obama officials exposed secrets, politicized intelligence with Russia probe,’” Fleischer tweeted. “The subtext here is that if Trump does something, it must be wrong. If Obama does something, it must be right.”
In fact, corrupt Trump official Michael Flynn was "unmasked" -- a revealing of the identity of the person communicating with a foreign entity who intelligence sources were monitoring -- because, according to then-national security adviser Susan Rice, she was trying to understand why the United Arab Emirates was trying to establish a back channel of communication to the incoming Trump administration without alerting U.S. officials of the effort. Despite right-wing insistence to the contrary, there's no evidence the unmasking was done for political purposes. There's no evidence Rice leaked Flynn's identity or that the Obama administration "politicized intelligence."
Of course, Fleischer doesn't explain why Flynn's secret communications with Russian and other officials should have been kept secret -- and Sheffield doesn't either.
Further, while some details of the Steele dossier of raw intellligence remain unproven or have apparently turned out to be false, its overall message -- that Russia worked to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election -- is true and was arguably confirmed by the Mueller report. That's far from the "false dossier" claim Fleischer makes.
P.S. Someone at AIM should probably be alerted that the stock photo of the Washington Post building it used to illustrate Sheffield's post is wildly out of date; the Post sold the building and moved its offices elsewhere a few years ago, and the building has since been torn down and replaced.
MRC Loves Levin's New Book, Almost As If It Was Being Paid To Do So Topic: Media Research Center
Right-wing radio host Mark Levin has a new media-bashing book out, and the Media Research Center is there to lavish praise on it -- almost as if it was being paid to do so. (Levin and the MRC have had previous cross-promotion business deals, after all.)
That comes straight from the top, and Tim Graham and Brent Bozell gush in their May 22 column:
Best-selling author and talk-radio star Mark Levin has another terrific new book that debuted at number one on the charts. The media habitually ignore Levin's books -- no New York Times reviews, no TV interviews, nothing -- and it must drive them insane that he still sells 1 million copies. But this one's is called Unfreedom of the Press, and this one's a direct shot at them, so some may find it impossible to resist a response.
This is why the liberals don’t want to engage with Levin or his books. Most won’t seriously debate serious conservatives because as with issues like these, it's a lost cause. There are laws of nature, and this horse manure doesn't fly. They spent eight long years ignoring or dismissing the foibles of Obama while advancing anything he deemed necessary. When Obama aide Ben Rhodes boasted – in the New York Times! – that he had easily created an “echo chamber” in the press to promote their Iran arms deal, they didn't blink in surprise, or embarrassment. They winked.
When Obama was president, there was no resistance, no argument for “standing up to history’s judgment.” There was only teamwork. The team is still intact, now devoted to the proposition that this president ought never have been elected, and now must be removed.
Buy Unfreedom Of the Press. Just imagine what will be the look on Annalisa Quinn's face when she learns Levin has sold a million hardback copies again.
(Actually, we reviewed Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" for the Huffington Post back in the day, uncovering several factual errors in the process, and Levin had no interest in engaging with us to respond.)
Bozell's MRC minions followed in lockstep. Under the headline "Watch Levin Take a Blowtorch to the ‘Thin-Skinned’ Liberal Media," Curtis Houck effused in a fit of meta-promotion:
Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin dedicated Sunday’s edition of Life, Liberty, & Levin to promoting his new book Unfreedom of the Press (set for release Tuesday) with Fox & Friends: Weekend co-host Pete Hegseth and, as expected, “the Great One” didn’t hold back, throwing the liberal media through a wood chipper and calling out their rampant Trump hatred.
Levin set the table within the first few minutes, providing yet another invaluable history lesson[.]
Throughout the interview, Levin highlighted example after example of how past Presidents in every century actually worked to undermine the First Amendment, illustrating how overblown the liberal media’s hyperventilation over President Trump are.
Graham returned for damage-control mode in a June 2 post when someone defied his prediction and did engage with Levin's book in a Washington Post op-ed. When that writer pointed out that right-wing activists "purport to analyze the leftward lean of the press with a scholarly veneer," Graham insisted that "We would put our own books at the Media Research Center into that "wake," analyzing liberal bias with a 'scholarly veneer.'" Aswe'vedocumented, the MRC's "media research" is very much just a veneer, more interested in manufacturing data that fits its right-wing, anti-media agenda than following the data where it leads.
But Graham being Graham -- that is, unable to keep from hurling personal insults at anyone who disagrees with him -- he huffed: "It's always funny when liberal professors lard their books with their analysis, and that is 'scholarly,' but conservative media research has a 'veneer,' like it's fraudulent." That's because conservative "media research" cares only more pushing a political agenda than "scholarly" things like balance and documentation.
When the writer accurately pointed out that the New York Times and the Washington Post are not "liberal equivalents of Fox News," Graham went on attack again: "That's hilarious. But it's the media equivalent of his 'I'm scholarly, you're fake.' It's almost not worth quoting, but Lerner uncorks the time-worn cliche that liberals are the open-minded cosmopolitans that make the best journalists."
Of course, the idea that the Times and the Post are farther to the left than Fox News is to the right is a foundational MRC belief, and Graham can't let it go unchallenged, even if can only offer juvenilie mockery in response.
UPDATE: Graham attacked another less-than-glowing review of Levin's book in a June 5 post. First, he played whataboutism by complaining that the reviewer liked a book critical of Trump by Michael Wolff, "the guy who claimed without evidence that Trump was having an affair with U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley." (Levin falsely claimed that President Obama directly intervened in a Israeli election in 2015, and we didn't hear Graham demanding a fact-check over that.)
Graham then inserted Twitter posts from Levin making the same attack against the reviewer. Great minds (are maybe paid to) think alike.
In their continued efforts to deceive the public, Muslim terrorist-sponsoring groups have engineered an Erebusic plan of subversion that has been successful in its early stages.
I submit that they are in the beginning stages of packing elected offices with Muslim women who are, by all appearance, Americanized. These women do not view themselves as Americans – they view themselves as Muslims. The best example of this is Ilhan Omar, D-MN.
This Omar person is the vilest form of myiasis infesting our government today. Her reasoning is singularly loyal to Islam. It was clear by her questioning of the Pentagon official that her concerns and loyalty laid exclusively with the well being of the Islamic terrorists.
We the people of America view her remarks as an insult to our brave military members who were responsible for rescuing her Somalia village.
She came to America under a cloud of falsified documents, the belief that she married her brother to gain citizenship and rumors that the incestuous marriage was not only consummated, but that she bore children from him. As I said, these things are alleged; but with her kind of Muslim, history proves rumors about them are often true. At the very least, the rumors should be thoroughly investigated.
I find it interesting that as she waxed poetically about her time spent in the Kenyan refugee camp, she omitted the rapes and brutality that took place in same. Perhaps it is because it was reminiscent of her village in Somalia. But I digress.
Since she has such cherished fondness for being in a refugee camp overrun with filth and terrorist-driven Muslims, why didn’t she return there when she became of age? Why did she stay in America, a country she so despises?
Massie concluded by sneering: "Maybe Omar would have been better off living in squalor as the personal possession of some goat herder with rotten teeth who took baths seasonally. I can say with confidence that America would be better off without her and her kind – specifically those being used by terrorist front groups to further the Muslims agenda.
Massie is stillpeddling conspiracy theories about another black politician he doesn't like, Barack Obama.
MRC Mad That Whoopi Goldberg's Veracity Not Treated The Same As Trump's Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center bigwig Tim Graham's current schtick is to "fact-check the fact-checkers" -- which mostlycomesdown to complaining that President Trump is being fact-checked at all. Graham whines again in a May 3 post:
Can you say "coup" nowadays? It was fun to recall this week that liberal TV news stars like Dan Rather described the impeachment trial of President Clinton that "this is in fact a kind of effort at a quote, ‘coup’?" Some liberals like Whoopi Goldberg on The View are using it right now for Bill Barr: "When the top law man in the country can't give you a straight answer, it makes me uncomfortable. It feels coup-y. Like, it's like a coup of some sort."
But when Donald Trump uses this rhetoric, PolitiFact ranks it as "Pants On Fire."
Yes, Graham is demanding that a talk-show host be held to the same factual standards as the president of the United States.
On May 23, Graham was similarly mad that Trump's overheated Biden-bashing rhetoric was called out:
The liberals at PolitiFact are so touchy about President Trump mocking Democrats that they slap a "Mostly False" on things that just make them angry. Take this statement: "Don't forget Biden deserted you. He's not from Pennsylvania. I guess he was born here, but he left you, folks."
PolitiFact admits Biden hasn't lived in Scranton since 1953...that's 66 years ago. But it's "false" because you can't "desert" a state when your family moves to another state when you're in grade school. So they're basing a "fact check" on not liking the word "deserted." Obviously, Biden could have returned to reside in Pennsylvania when he became an adult, but he never did.
Jacobson made a brief reference to the fact that Biden's longtime home state of Delaware has no television stations, so Biden needs to get on the air in Philadelphia. And it's easier to project "blue collar-aligned roots" by tying yourself to Scranton. It's also an obvious political move since Pennyslvania is a much bigger player in a presidential election. Mocking any of that as electioneering? Well, that's "Mostly False," according to Democrats who work as "fact checkers."
PolitiFact concluded: "The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the statement Mostly False."
That's classic subjective Fact Checker-speak. They object to Republicans ignoring facts that would leave a positive "impression."
And Graham is invoking classic subjective anti-fact-checker speak because he's angry that Trump is being put into context -- something he selectively cares about.
Shocker: WND Attempts Balance On Vaccines Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has been giving a lot of space lately to anti-vaxxers even as a measles epidemic fueled by lack of vaccination is raging. But WND suddenly has a surprise: a May 20 column that takes an unusually balanced (for WND) view of the vaccine.
There's a second surprise: the person who wrote this relatively balanced take is Rachel Alexander, who we last saw trying to portray criminal ex-congressman Steve Stockman as the victim of a "Deep State" conspiracy.
Alexander admitted that "Vaccines prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of a deadly disease – but it’s true that they may come at the expense of a smaller number of side effects. The controversy arises over determining the degree and type of side effects caused by the vaccines." She alsodid something we've rarely seen at WND: point out that claims linking vaccines to autismhave been discredited, and that anti-vaxxers who refuse to vaccinate their children endanger the health of others:
One condition that has been blamed on vaccines is autism. A 1998 study in the prestigious British journal The Lancet linked the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine with autism. Investigations concluded the research was fraudulent 12 years later, and the lead author was stripped of his medical license. A legal review called the Omnibus Autism Proceeding found no causal relationship between the two. But partially as a result of the article, more than 5,000 cases were filed by 2010 claiming a link between vaccines and autism.
Charles Nelson, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and a neuroscientist at Boston Children’s Hospital, said progress is being made researching autism. Doctors are seeing signs of autism at three to six months of age, well before babies are vaccinated with the MMR vaccine at 1 year old.
Over 90 percent of kindergarteners in the U.S. are vaccinated for most types of immunizations. Some states have laws that allow exemptions. But if parents decide not to give their child the MMR vaccine, they risk not only infecting their child and their peers but also babies under 12 months and people with cancer or weakened immune systems.
Alexander wavered a bit at the end, claiming: "While it appears that the evidence weighs in favor of vaccines, it is best to be fully informed about the controversy before deciding either way." Still, for the anti-vaxxers at WND, it's a definite change of pace.
Lest you think that WND has taken our advice and examined its editorial policies, or that Alexander has suddenly become a reasonable columnist, you can rest easy: Alexander's column the following week was yet another defense of Stockman, insisting he was targeted by "corrupt, left-leaning prosecutors in the Department of Justice" and begging President Trump and Attorney General William Barr to "thoroughly clean out the DOJ from top to bottom."
AIM Stop Talking About The Mueller Report! Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media really, really wants to move on from the Mueller report, if an anonymously written May 30 post (credited only to "AIM Staff") is any indication:
With special counsel Robert Mueller holding a press conference Wednesday to discuss the infamous Mueller Report, expect to see the mainstream media obsessing over every single word Mueller said.
Expect lots of news stories that ignore the facts – especially that after almost two years of investigating, Mueller found no collusion on the part of the President – and instead misrepresented the facts in order to fit their own narrative.
Never mind that the Mueller Report makes it clear there was no collusion. Never mind that Mueller had almost two years to find something and found nothing. Never mind that the Department of Justice has determined this matter has been thoroughly investigated and is now considered closed.
The media will use this press conference as an excuse to write another series of articles calling into question the investigation – the same investigation they championed when they thought it would hurt President Donald Trump.
While the national media continues to obsess over Mueller, most are ignoring the real news of the day, including a new poll from Monmouth University showing that public support for tariffs and the trade war are waning.
Trump’s talk on trade helped him win some of those Midwest states in 2016 like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Gordon’s home state of Wisconsin. But with these new numbers coming out, the Trump campaign will likely be reconsidering whether that same message will work again in 2020.
So AIM wants us to stop focusing on one Trump mess (no, AIM, Mueller never said there was "no collusion," just that it didn't rise to a level of criminality -- even conservative Fox News anchor Bret Baier agrees) and focus on a new Trump mess? Got it.
Gay Cartoon Characters Send MRC Into Anti-Gay Freakout Mode Topic: Media Research Center
At the Media Research Center, the mere existence of non-heterosexual character in a children's cartoon makes it automatically unsafe for children to watch. Annie Piper explains in a April 29 post:
In this day and age, parents have to be extra cautious about what their kids watch as not all cartoons are actually kid appropriate. Fortunately, there are some innocent shows out there, but then there are shows that aren’t as innocent as they seem. One such show, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, proved to fall in the latter category when the first part of their second season debuted on Netflix on April 26.
The series is a revival of a popular kids action show from 1985, and follows heroine Princess Adora (Aimee Carrero) AKA She-Ra. Upon first glance, the show is something most parents would be comfortable with their kids watching as long as they could handle the fantasy violence, but in its second season the TV-Y7 rated series starts to really push the gay agenda—without actually telling you it is.
And how is the show "pushing the gay agenda"? By acknowledging that one female character "has a crush" on another female character and that another character has two dads" (Piper sneered, "yes, that was plural"). Piper then lectured:
By now, we’re (unfortunately) used to most of the prime time adult shows having the requisite gay character and, more recently, even the gay child coming out has become popular on hit shows, but it seems like Hollywood isn’t content to stop there. They are now not only pushing this agenda on fictional kids, but actually pushing it to the children in their audiences, and it seems as though they’re hoping conservative parents don’t watch past the first couple of episodes. Moral of the story: if you don’t already, you might want to research your kid’s favorite shows a little more thoroughly.
Yes, acknowledging that gay people exist is an "agenda," according to the MRC.
The MRC similarly freaked out when a teacher on the long-running children's show "Arthur" married his gay spouse. Take it away, Gabriel Hays:
Some say that if a hero lives long enough, they’ll eventually see themselves become the villain. Well, that certainly can be said for PBS children's classic Arthur. The show, now in its 22nd season, has taken beloved character, Mr. Ratburn, and made him gay. In the season premiere, the 3rd grade teacher and male role model for Arthur and his gang said “I do” to a male anthropomorphic muskrat (or something) in a wedding ceremony attended by his students. As one character exclaimed, “It’s a brand new world.”
That's right -- if you're gay, you're a "villain," according to Hays. And Hays also apparently believes that the show arbitrarily "made [Mr. Ratburn] gay."
Hays goes on to complain that the show dragged out the wedding ceremony "like some sort of grand reveal that ultimately feels insidious rather than celebratory," then sneers: "Let’s just say that Arthur has officially overstayed its welcome."
When a public broadcasting affiliate in Alabama refused to air the "Arthur" episode, the MRC rushed to their defense. Matt Philbin huffed that "The lefty Twitter mob is predictably enraged" by the decision to not air "federally funded gay propaganda." And Kyle Drennen complained that one discussion of the show refused to "acknowledge the controversy of using a kids cartoon show to push a liberal social agenda" and that "journalists immediately attack anyone who objects and demand that they 'celebrate' the effort."
Yes, showing that gay people exist is apparently "propaganda" and an "agenda." And there's no explanation frm the MRC of why the existence of gay people must be suppressed from children.
WND's Cashill Sees Secret Message In Choice For Trump Rally Site Topic: WorldNetDaily
One of WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill's favorite conspiracies is the one surrounding the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. Despite the conclusion of an extensive investigation that the likely cause was a short circuit that caused a fuel tank to explode, Cashill has clung to the idea that it was shot down by a missile.
Cashill got to rehash that conspiracy theory yet again in his May 22 column, with the added hook of a new conspiracy theory: that the choice of location for a rally by President Trump sent a secret message to conspiacy-mongers like him:
On Monday, President Donald Trump held a rally in Montoursville, Pennsylvania.
Not many people have heard of Montoursville, a pleasant little town of fewer than 5,000 people. But those who have include the CIA analysts, FBI honchos and Clinton White House operatives who orchestrated the cover-up of the TWA 800 crash.
On July 17, 1996, the ill-fated 747 was shot down off the coast of Long Island, almost surely by accident, killing all 230 people on board.
Among the dead were 16 French-club students from Montoursville High School and five of their chaperones. I have been to Montoursville and spoken with people who lost their children. They are still waiting for answers.
Many people are waiting for answers, including the hundreds of TWA veterans with whom I have spoken, most recently at a heavily attended LAX event led by retired TWA Capt. Al Francis.
The TWA vets lost 53 of their colleagues on board that plane. If there is one among them who buys the government line that a rogue spark blew up the center fuel tank, I have not met him or her.
A question I have heard often, and I suspect Capt. Francis has too, is whether President Trump can or will reopen the investigation, there being no riper example of deep state treachery than the TWA 800 investigation.
I am not optimistic, but Monday’s rally gave me a glimmer of hope. In the special congressional election held the following day, Republican Fred Keller did not need the president’s help: he won by a greater than 2-to-1 margin.
Presuming that the election inspired the trip, the obvious site of the rally should have been the nearby and much larger Williamsport, the county seat and celebrated home of the Little League World Series.
Indeed, there are many towns in Pennsylvania’s 12th district larger than Montoursville. But the president chose Montoursville.
Cashill then served up a lengthy list of bullet points of "what Trump’s people need to know" about the crash of TWA 800. He rehashed that, plus another discredited claim: that Clinton Justice Department official Jamie Gorelick created the "wall" that kept law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information, which became an issue after 9/11. As we documented at the time, when Gorelick later became a member of the commission looking into the 9/11 attacks, that "wall" was erected in the late 1970s, and the George W. Bush administration's Justice Department reaffirmed it shortly before 9/11, well after Gorelick left government service.
Cashill ominously concluded: "Those responsible for the cover-up had to sleep just a wee bit uneasily Monday night. They know what 'Montoursville' means. Here’s hoping the president does too." Meanwhile, Cashill -- who a few months ago lost his wingnut-welfare job at the Sentinel, a "news" operation run by a right-wing think tank in Kansas -- sleeps the sleep of the aggressively unashamed.
MRC Still Defending Right-Wing Hate-Mongerers As 'Non-Violent' Conservatives Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center has stood by hate-spewing anti-Muslim writer Laura Loomer by painting her as a free-speech hero as gets deplatformed for her hate -- it can't admit she's anything more than a "controversial Jewish activist." The MRC has continued to promote her stunts as newsworthy and downplay her hate and extremism.
A May 2 article by Alexander Hall complained that PayPal as "deplatformed non-violent conservative activists like Laura Loomer. A May 7 post by Hall promoted how Loomer, ihn protest of her banning by Facebook, "showed up to Facebook’s lobby on May 3, skewering the company for showing solidarity for everybody but Jewish and Christian people." Hall benignly described Loomer only as a "recently deplatformed activist," silent once again on her well-documented-elsewhere hate; instead, he huffed that "Facebook, like many other big tech companies, is famous for a left-wing political monoculture."
Hall used a May 14 post to give free publicity to a film about "five people who have been shut down and silenced on social media," including Loomer, whom he described only as a "Jewish-American activist/performance artist." Hall tried to whitewash other hatemongers featured in the film as well. Tommy Robinson is described only as a "British activist" when, in fact, he's the leader of the far-right anti-Muslim English Defence League; Gavin McInnes is described only as a "former CRTV host" when he's also the founder of the violent, misogynist Proud Boys (and, thus, a former employee of MRC buddy Mark Levin, though he was fired only after Levin's CRTV merged with Glenn Beck's The Blaze).
Hall didn't mention that one of the makers fo the film, George Llewelyn-John, is a colleague of Robinson's, and another, Caolyn Robertson, is Robinson's former cameraman and best known for a video rant following an incident in London in which six pedestrians were killed by a Muslim in a car, where Robertson asserted that "if you import a culture, you get a culture." In other words, this film is nowhere near as objective as Hall suggests it is.
A May 17 post by Corinne Weaver noted Loomer was only among the "individuals" banned by Facebook with no mention of why she was banned. On May 21, Hall had another benign description for Loomer -- "Jewish American activist" -- and complained that she and Infowars conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson were among "controversial but ultimately non-violent YouTubers" who have been "purged."
Gabriel Hays contributed to the whitewashing in a May 23 post, complining that a vulgar song by a French rapper nobody's ever heard of remains on YouTube "while internet personalities like Laura Loomer and Paul Joseph Watson have been removed for 'far less violent content.'"
Hall again touted that dubious film in a May 24 post, and how it features "interviews multiple conservatives who have been targeted by Big Tech purges such as Laura Loomer and Tommy Robinson."
CNS Managing Editor Continues His LGBT-Bashing Ways Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's continued hostility toward the LGBT community is led, asalways, by managing editor Michael W. Chapman.
In a May 7 article, he reports on Bud Light partnering with GLAAD in offering a rainbow aluminum bottle that, in Chapman's words, is "devoted to promoting and celebrating the agenda of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders." He then complains that "GLAAD has spent years trying to obscure the fact that in the United States HIV/AIDS is a disease that has largely affected the gay population" and illustrates his article with pictures of stock photos of outrageously dressed people in gay pride parades, as if they are representative of the entire LGBT community.
On May 14, Chapman highlighted how "Twitter recently locked the account of esteemed sexual psychologist Ray Blanchard, Ph.D.--apparently for posting that "transsexualism" and "gender dysphoria are types of mental disorder"--and then unlocked his account and apologized." Chapman then engaged in a rare bit of so-called reporting:
Following Dr. Blanchard's ordeal, CNSNews.com contacted Twitter's communications department by email and tweet on two occasions. CNSNews.com cited Dr. Blanchard's post and asked, "Given that Twitter states it 'made an error' in this case, is it permissible to post -- without having one's account locked -- on Twitter that, 'Transsexualism and milder forms of gender dysphoria are types of mental disorder'?"
Nicholas Pacilio with the Twitter press office responded on May 14, "We would decline to comment further beyond the May 11 and 12 communications [of Blanchard] you've cited. Thank you."
Twitter apparently is unwilling to state whether people can post the scientifically held view that transsexualism and gender dysphoria are types of "mental disorder."
This reminds us of the time that CNS obsessed over ex-FBI agent Peter Strzok's sex life to the point that it rewrote an article so it could pester the FBI about whether the agency had a policy against employees committing adultery.
On May 16, Chapman harrumphed: "Reverend Franklin Graham denounced a recent episode of the PBS cartoon 'Arthur,' which showed two male characters getting married and Arthur and other characters applauding this blatant promotion of male sodomy." Neither Chapman nor Graham explained where "male sodomy" was mentioned anywhere in the episode.
Chapman spent a May 22 article complaining that "the percentage of Americans who think same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, just like real marriage between a man and a woman, has more than doubled from 27% in 1996 to 63% in 2019. In addition, the percentage of Americans who believe gay relations are morally acceptable has increased from 40% in 2001 to 63% in 2019. In roughly two decades, Americans' support for homosexual behavior and so-called gay marriage has dramatically increased."
Chapman then huffed: "Sodomitical 'marriages"'were legalized by the Supreme Court in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision," then misquoted the poll; it referenced "gay and lesbian relations"while Chapman insisted on calling it "sodomitical relations."
Chapman dedicated a May 30 article to the latest rantings of notoriously homophobic minister E.W. Jackson that "gay couples cannot be parents in the real sense because they do not procreate, by definition as homosexuals, and can only 'manufacture' children for 'their own entertainment' through scientific manipulations."
Chapman also came to the defense of Israel Folau, a soccer player who lost his job after he tweeted anti-gay sentiments, which Chapman spun as merely "expressing his Christian beliefs." Chapman cheered Folau's anti-gay rantings a year ago.
By contrast, Chapman seemed to have a sad in a scare quote-laden May 20 article that President Trump doesn't care that Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg "is gay and 'married' and that he appears on stage with his 'husband.'" Chapman also thinks we need to know that Buttigieg "met his 'husband,' Chasten Glezman Buttigieg, on the dating app Hinge."
The MRC Hate-Watches 'Supergirl' For Trans Character, Pro-Journalism Storyline Topic: Media Research Center
Lindsay Kornick has been stuck with the Media Research Center assignment of hate-watching the CW show "Supergirl." And as is her job, she found a lot to late.
At the top of that list is the fact that the show has a transgender character named Nia. We've already noted that Kornick ranted about it in February, insisting that "most children who go through gender dysphoria eventually outgrow it by the time they become adults." and that "transitioning Nia at a young age is probably the opposite of affirming her authentic self."
She wasn't done ranting, though. In an April 29 post, Kornick complained:
Let’s face it, CW’s Supergirl has always been preachy. But there’s preachy, and then there’s obnoxiously, sycophantically preachy. The superhero series flies towards the latter in yet another episode >proclaiming how being trans is being "strong" and "authentic" nowadays.
In the meantime, our transgender hero Nia Nal (Nicole Maines) has stepped up to protect the city as the superhero Dreamer - and, yes, that is what they’re calling her with a straight face. Despite not having the mantle for long, she’s apparently doing a decent job against crime. However, that doesn’t stop all of the xenophobic attacks. The super friends then decide to come up with another idea to combat hate.
Supergirl, using her alter ego as reporter Kara Danvers, gives a public interview with “Dreamer” to promote a positive image of human and alien unity. After all, Nia is the product of a human father and an alien mother as well as a trans woman. That last detail really has nothing to do with the alien crisis, but the show just can’t help but remind us in this pandering speech.
The other characters predictably hail her words as brave and inspiring instead of the preachy and cringey mess they really are. They act like we’ve never heard these words before in the media or even on th>The Children of Liberty then come to arrest Dreamer for “an illegal seditious broadcast,” only to be stopped by CatCo Media editor James Olsen (Mechad Brooks). In full social justice warrior fashion, he defends the broadcast saying, “All I see are journalists exercising their right to freedom of speech and doing their duty to uphold freedom of press.” Strangely, I doubt that these characters would say the same thing about people discussing how men cannot be women. Or how landing on Earth shouldn’t automatically make you an American citizen. Then it would probably be considered a hate crime.
Supergirl continues to be one of the more hypocritical shows on the air, but now it’s definitely one of the more obnoxious shows as well. If we never get another episode waxing about sharing "our authentic selves," it’ll be too soon.
Meanwhile, nobody's stopping Kornick from being as preachy as she wants to be. But that's the only reason she hate-watches "Supergirl": She's also mad that ity says nice things about journalism that deviate from the MRC's anti-media narrative.
Kornick huffed in a March 10 post that the show gave "unmitigated praise towards journalism," which is apparently forbidden at the MRC. She lectured: "It’s so annoying that Supergirl acts like its storyline and journalism are apparently single-handedly stopping bigotry. The only bigotry I see is assuming everyone on the opposite side are angry, hateful jerks. Maybe Supergirl isn’t above this, but most of America should be."
And in a May 19 post, Kornick whined that the show's season finale was "honoring the real heroes of the show: journalists." She complains that Lex Luthor "is literally winning because of fake news and a stupid public" and was stopped only because Supergirl's alter ego "writes an expose on Luthor, detailing evidence that he committed treason, along with the President, to orchestrate his heroism. The article is so successful it leads to the Cabinet invoking the 25th Amendment. It’s truly a liberal dream come true."
And since only liberals like journalists, gaying good things about journalists is clearly an evil liberal plot:
I’m honestly surprised anyone can brag how “the fourth estate saved the day” with a straight face anymore, but that’s how delusional this show has become over the last four years. It somehow imagines a world where noble journalists can take out evil presidents and single-handedly stop all political tension. In the meantime, it never seems to discuss journalists causing harmful tension or spreading fake news or genuinely not saving the day. Maybe that’s why they call it science “fiction.”
Kornick's link on "spreading fake news" was to a NewsBusters post about one of the Covington kids suing CNN even though CNN eventually corrected the story. It did not link to any MRC post that heavily promoted a false Fox News story during the 2016 election that Hillary Clinton faced imminent indictment. The MRC never corrected the record, let alone apologized.
As followers of Jesus, we are called to submit to the laws of the land and to honor those in authority. The New Testament is very clear on this (see especially Romans 13:1-7). It is also very clear that there are exceptions to this rule, namely, when the authorities require us to disobey the Lord (see Acts 5:40-42). In that case, with respect, we say, “We must obey God rather than man” (see Acts 4:18-20; 5:29; to be perfectly clear, I’m speaking of non-violent resistance to the law.)
That time has come for parents in California.
In good conscience, they must say NO to the school authorities and YES to the Lord. It’s time to declare to the schools of California, “Quit using our children as pawns in the culture wars! Quit sexualizing our kids!”
I’m speaking about the radical new sex-ed curriculum being imposed on all students in the public schools, K-12, without exception, and without the option of parents removing their children from objectionable classes.
We’re talking about kindergarteners – little children just 5-6 years-old – being indoctrinated with transgender talking points. Indeed, “a book for kindergarten through third grade teaches kids that they can be a boy, girl, neither, gender queer or gender fluid and that adults might not understand their gender identity.”
Parents, say NO to your impressionable little ones being exposed to trash like this. How dare the school bring such confusion to your precious children.
We’re talking about introducing boys as young as 9 to slang words for sexual organs. Yes, “A book for fourth, fifth and sixth-grade boys discusses slang words for genitals and explains masturbation and sexual fantasies.”
Parents, say NO to turning your little, pre-pubescent boys into sex-savvy, worldy-wise street-talkers.
We’re talking about promoting outright perversion to your high-school kids. To be specific, “A book for high school studentsintroduces sex acts for all sexual orientations and introduces the concepts of bondage, body fluid, blood play, fisting and other sexual behaviors once considered to be acts of debauchery.”
Parents, you must say that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Brown clearly thinks that the education about the LGBT community -- when they're permitted to be referred to at all in school -- must only be about demonization and immorality. Brown then hammers that point home:
Really now, who appointed the school system to be the moral conscience of your family? Who appointed teachers to enter your homes on behalf LGBT activists and sexual anarchists? How can you tolerate an invasion like this?
But, one way or another, I urge every Christian parent in California to refuse to allow your children to be polluted by an immoral educational system, whatever it takes. (Again, I am speaking here only of peaceful means, not violent means, God forbid.)
Apparently, we're supposed to be comforted that Brown's extreme rhetoric doesn't involve calling for violence against LGBT people.
Then, in his May 24 WND column, Brown complained that his hateful rhetoric was called out:
Last week, I encouraged Christian parents in California who had children in public schools to defy the law and pull their kids from the state’s extreme sex-ed curriculum. How did the Friendly Atheist’s resident Episcopalian blogger respond?
According to Sarahbeth Caplin, I want these parents to teach “their kids that transgender people don’t exist.” (Yes, she actually wrote this.)
In sum, “This is just faith-based, hate-fueled fear-mongering. It’s the only subject in which Michael Brown is an expert.”
What a sad commentary on the nature of liberal illogic. And what a misrepresentation of the facts.
My article says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of people who identify as transgender.
Instead, it protests the idea that kindergarten children should be told that perhaps they’re actually boys in girls’ bodies (or the reverse, or some other option).
Brown doesn't admit that he has always hated transgender people, and mocks any non-denigrating discussion about them as "transanity."
The headline of Brown's column complains that liberals "misrepresent & demonize" him, but he has always misrepresented and demonized LGBT people.